bakerstreetfandomcom-20200222-history
Baker Street Wiki talk:Requests for adminship
Requirements Are there going to be requirements that a user must meet to run for admin? ~Obi (Talk) 23:21, March 8, 2014 (UTC) :So far I've just asked people who I thought would make a good admin, or admins have been added who were an admin on a wiki that this wiki has merged with. Since the wiki is becoming a bit more active I thought it was time a proper processes was put in place, but haven't given precise thought to exactly what this will be. :I think community consensus should be the main decider, with all members getting a vote on proposed admins, and the majority vote deciding the matter. :I don't mind if we have no requirements or a few - but I don't think we should make it too complicated. I'll make a highlighted post in the forums about this discussion and see if we can get a few more opinions. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:29, March 11, 2014 (UTC) ::Sounds like a plan to me. ~Obi (Talk) 14:30, March 11, 2014 (UTC) :::I thought it might be useful if I started the ball rolling by making a few basic suggestions. :::Apart from having each candidate/nominator say why they think they should have admin rights/why the user they're nominating should have them, I don't think we need to put any requirements in place that a user needs to meet to run for admin. I think that anyone putting themselves forwards who was unsuitable wouldn't get voted for by the community. But if others want us to have a few basic requirements (numbers of edits, time spent on the site, etc) then I don't mind. :::What I do think we should have in place is a definite system for voting and who gets a vote on admins. I think only registered members who have more than perhaps 100 edits should get a vote - no anons or brand new accounts (none less than a month old maybe) as that leaves it open to vote rigging. :::Anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 00:01, March 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::I think that your proposed system would work well for the time being. Eventually, if the community expands, it would make sense to have time and editcount requirements in order to avoid excessive nominations/requests for rights. At the time, we don't really have to worry about that, since we only have a few active users. ::::We definitely should restrict voting to registered users who have been on the wiki for a good amount of time (a month sounds good to me). This will prevent both sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry, since it is highly unlikely that people would create an alternate account and spend a month making at least a hundred edits just in order to vote for themselves, and it is likewise unlikely that someone could convince friends to invest that amount of time/edits just so they could vote. ::::One last thing to decide is the details of the voting process. How many votes, or what percentage of votes, are required for a nomination or request to succeed? My suggestion would be that there is no flat number (as we have very few users) but instead a percentage. Maybe at least 75% of total votes must be supports? ~Obi (Talk) :::::The proposed systems sounds great for now. I also agree with the propositions by Obi. --Nxtstep101 02:09, March 30, 2014 (UTC) I've added a rough draft to the page guiding people how to use it nothing controversial I don't think. The section on any rules/requirements we want to put in place is still blank for now. Hopefully we'll get a little more input on this discussion. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 23:48, March 29, 2014 (UTC) Since there appears to be no disagreement or further thoughts on what to add, should you implement the ideas we've discussed? ~Obi (Talk) Personally, I think there should be a minimum time and edit count (not on social spaces) to request, nominate, and vote. This is just to ensure that the users who are being nominated and voting know their way around the wiki and know what they're doing. I think a month is long enough for other users to be able to see whether or not a user really is deserving and worthy of the rights. I think it should be specified that all votes must have a reason, and a reason like 'he's a nice guy!' for a support isn't good enough (nor is 'he always undoes my edits!' for an opposed vote). 03:25, April 28, 2014 (UTC) :I think that AO's point above is that people who aren't highly qualified won't receive the needed support for a promotion—if they don't know their way around the wiki, it's unlikely for them to get support. The edit and time requirements are usually put in place to prevent excessive nominations, which isn't a problem (yet) for this wiki. ~Obi (Talk) ::Ah, so, perhaps when the wiki becomes busier, they will be needed, but at the moment, they are not? I can see that. Is there to be a policy regarding admin activity? 05:40, May 2, 2014 (UTC) I've added a little to the section on Rules/requirements given what was discussed above - if everyone could take a look and give any feedback they have then I think we can implement this system. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:42, May 20, 2014 (UTC) : I just had a thought - do we need to add a rule that says that a user must get at least ? number of votes to win? A user who got 1 vote in favour and none against would be getting 100% support but I'm not sure they should win with so little input from the community? --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:49, May 20, 2014 (UTC) ::Hmm... well, considering we only have a few active users, I don't think this matters yet. Everyone knows everyone. I do think we should limit it to logged in users who have had over x number of votes, but not that they must have x number of voters. And in such a case, they might be the perfect fit, but the rest of the community doesn't realise they were nominated. Perhaps, for the time being, highlighting a candidate would help get the input needed (but if that occurs, I strongly encourage employing a 'must be logged in' rule, because that way, we can see the members who understand what this wiki does, and how it works). ::As another note, perhaps there should be a 'cooldown' period; a time period where, if a user has failed to be appointed, they must wait a certain amount of time before nominating or being nominated again. ::Perhaps an established 'rollback' page would help, to give extra rights to users that don't meet, or haven't nominated, to be an admin, but who deserve it. 00:08, May 21, 2014 (UTC) :::If we did do a minimum amount, it would have to be relatively small, since we don't have very many active users. :::I definitely agree with Fruipit that there should be a "cooldown" period after someone has unsuccessfully requested for rights. Somewhere around a couple weeks would probably work. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 04:39, May 21, 2014 (UTC) ::::Aye, that's another thought. We only have, what, five people who are on here consistently? At the moment, if a user doesn't get the rights, then it's obvious that it's for one of two reasons; the active users don't see the nomination, or they don't see the need to give that user the rights. I'm favouring the latter at the moment, because yeah, everyone knows everyone. And everyone sees everything @_@ ::::A month for the 'cooldown' would be my first thought. 05:02, May 21, 2014 (UTC) :::::I've split the difference and put three weeks. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:05, May 21, 2014 (UTC) Discussion concluded: Policy finalised and implemented. Since there have been no additional comments to this, I've put this in place as official wiki policy. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 21:37, May 27, 2014 (UTC) Activity requirements I think we should have requirements regarding activity here. Three of the four current admins I've never met, after being here for over a month. I think that if we enact a 'must be a presence' on the wiki rule, it would help. Not sure of the specifics, but basically... people who aren't all that active don't really need the extra rights. I also think we should chronicle who the founder is and all past/present admins. Just for posterity. 11:23, June 6, 2014 (UTC) :I wouldn't ever want to remove someones rights just because they're inactive. They might come back one day and resume activity, and I think it's a nice way of continuing to recognise the work they did on the wiki. :However, a case could definitely be made for only listing the active admins here: Baker Street Wiki:About and listing both active and inactive here: Baker Street Wiki:Administrators. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:05, June 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, that's why we put them on the admin page as a former admin—to recognise that they were an admin. Not having a limit is kind of... what if they disappear for a year? Two? Are we to assume that they will need those rights if and when they come back? Another point is how much the wiki might have changed by that stage—how can they be an admin if they don't even know our policies anymore? 01:57, June 7, 2014 (UTC) :::How is it hurting the wiki for them to keep their rights? Also, I look on admins as just a normal user who has access to a few extra buttons - so I don't see why we should be putting this requirement on them. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 04:26, June 7, 2014 (UTC) ::::Would you give a user, no matter how much they help or know what they're doing, admin rights if they disappear for a while and then suddenly come back asking for them? An admin is someone who knows what they're doing and is willing to help out a wiki, and yet I've never seen nor heard from the others at all in creating the policies of the wiki. It is hurting the wiki because you yourself are not on all the time and things are missed—such as the adding of the policies into templates or deleting the unused files. We need more active admins, and we need a way of taking away the rights of those who are inactive. I'm not saying they have to be on all the time—you aren't, and the wiki gets along fine with that. I'm saying that almost 6 months of inactivity is hurting the wiki because, simply, it's not helping it, either. The admins are the ones people look up to, and with so many pages in need of help, we need the ones with the buttons to do a little more to actually use them. 05:09, June 7, 2014 (UTC) :::::We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'll never be okay with removing an admin's rights simply because they're inactive. Admins still have to abide by the same policies everyone else does and if they seriously broke them and didn't improve/stop then then I imagine they'd be removed but not simply for being inactive, unless you get support from the majority of the community. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:03, June 8, 2014 (UTC)